Church & family values go up with education

Used to, college graduates went to church less than the moderately educated. For some reason, though, this has changed. Along with church-going, higher education is also associated now with stronger families.

In the 1970s, the moderately educated — blue-collar, working-class Americans with high school diplomas or some college — were more likely to go to church every week than people with college degrees.

That has now reversed: Today 34 percent of college graduates attend weekly religious services, compared with 28 percent of moderately educated Americans, said the report, which was jointly issued by the NMP and Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values.

Many highly educated Americans might have “progressive views on social issues in general,” said Mr. Wilcox, but “when it comes to their own lives, they are increasingly adopting a marriage mindset and acting accordingly.”

The implications for the nation are sobering, said the report.

Most Americans (58 percent) are moderately educated. As they retreat from faith and marriage as a way of life, these families look more like the “fragile” ones led by the least educated, wrote Mr. Wilcox.

If this “downscale” trend continues, “it is likely that we will witness the emergence of a new society,” in which marriage and its socioeconomic successes, happiness and stability will be enjoyed primarily by the “upscale,” i.e., highly educated, he wrote. . . .

This year’s report highlighted several areas in which educational achievement was shown to make a big difference in family life:

• Highly educated Americans are far less likely to have a baby out of wedlock than moderately educated Americans (6 percent versus 44 percent).

• Highly educated Americans are more likely to say they are “very happy” in their marriages, compared with the moderately educated (69 percent v. 57 percent).

• Rates for divorce or separation in the first 10 years of marriage has declined among the highly educated (15 percent to 11 percent), but increased slightly for moderately educated (36 percent up to 37 percent).

• Teens from homes with college-graduate parents were far more likely to say they would be embarrassed by an unwed pregnancy compared with teens from homes with less-educated parents (76 percent versus 61 percent).

• Since the 1970s, teenage girls, age 14, of highly educated mothers were even more likely to be living with both their parents (81 percent, up from 80 percent). But 14-year-old girls whose mothers were moderately educated were far less likely to be living with both their parents (58 percent, down from 74 percent.)

I am a retired English professor and college administrator. I have written over 20 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

SKPeterson

Country music.

Seriously, though. I think it comes down to several factors. The increased “dumbing down” of a basic high school education is part of this. We teach kids many things, and many are taught well, but basics are often lacking. From my own observations, the average high school graduate, even one going to college, doesn’t read for enjoyment and doesn’t read well.

A second factor is a cultural trend to effectively demean work, especially skilled trades, that used to provide good incomes and job stability but didn’t require a college education. We bemoan the decline of our industrial base here in the U.S., but we also disparage those who would be the skilled labor force in those industries or the skilled labor force that is needed to maintain and construct our infrastructure: auto mechanics, machinery mechanics, electricians, plumbers. We value their services in the abstract, but we certainly don’t want our kids to take that career path. This then spills over into reduced vo-tech educational opportunities and a decreased emphasis on basic high school education: studetns heading to college can make up for the lack there, while those who can’t or don’t want to go to college increasingly fall into the grab-all “service” industry that isn’t so much about service, but as a holding business sector for people with diminished goals and aspirations.

Finally, welfare. Increasing levels of it and extended levels. Americans have often been poor, but it took the Great Society to institutionalize a permanent American underclass. We’ve now thrown away several generations, who act too much like thrown-away people. As economic circumstances change, vo-tech education is increasingly disparaged, and the incentives to avoid work are high,this trend is not likely to change – it is the unfortunate pattern observable in most of the rest of the world, and we seem desperate to emulate them.

SKPeterson

Country music.

Seriously, though. I think it comes down to several factors. The increased “dumbing down” of a basic high school education is part of this. We teach kids many things, and many are taught well, but basics are often lacking. From my own observations, the average high school graduate, even one going to college, doesn’t read for enjoyment and doesn’t read well.

A second factor is a cultural trend to effectively demean work, especially skilled trades, that used to provide good incomes and job stability but didn’t require a college education. We bemoan the decline of our industrial base here in the U.S., but we also disparage those who would be the skilled labor force in those industries or the skilled labor force that is needed to maintain and construct our infrastructure: auto mechanics, machinery mechanics, electricians, plumbers. We value their services in the abstract, but we certainly don’t want our kids to take that career path. This then spills over into reduced vo-tech educational opportunities and a decreased emphasis on basic high school education: studetns heading to college can make up for the lack there, while those who can’t or don’t want to go to college increasingly fall into the grab-all “service” industry that isn’t so much about service, but as a holding business sector for people with diminished goals and aspirations.

Finally, welfare. Increasing levels of it and extended levels. Americans have often been poor, but it took the Great Society to institutionalize a permanent American underclass. We’ve now thrown away several generations, who act too much like thrown-away people. As economic circumstances change, vo-tech education is increasingly disparaged, and the incentives to avoid work are high,this trend is not likely to change – it is the unfortunate pattern observable in most of the rest of the world, and we seem desperate to emulate them.

SAL

These sorts of studies treat the “college educated” as a static group.

Upward mobility may explain much of the findings.

If todays “moderately educated” are the children of yesterday’s working class then their behavior hasn’t changed only their economic status. Likewise todays “college graduates” may be the children of yesterday’s middle class.

In general those who are religious tend to have the most children who advance economically. This is because:

A) Birth rates rise with measures of religious piety. B) Economic advancement is most prevalent in traditional family arrangements.

This is why unconsciously even non-religious yuppies often try to marry and setup a traditional family to give their children a better chance in life.

SAL

These sorts of studies treat the “college educated” as a static group.

Upward mobility may explain much of the findings.

If todays “moderately educated” are the children of yesterday’s working class then their behavior hasn’t changed only their economic status. Likewise todays “college graduates” may be the children of yesterday’s middle class.

In general those who are religious tend to have the most children who advance economically. This is because:

A) Birth rates rise with measures of religious piety. B) Economic advancement is most prevalent in traditional family arrangements.

This is why unconsciously even non-religious yuppies often try to marry and setup a traditional family to give their children a better chance in life.

Tom Hering

SK, I agree with your observations concerning vo-tech education. The school where I live used to offer courses in welding, carpentry, auto repair, etc. Now they’re pretty much limited to courses in entry-level computer and medical skills. Plus courses that allow management types to update their resumes. This change is the result of a failure, on the part of a college-crazy society, to recognize how the manual trades require a high degree of intelligence. And provide careers that are fulfilling in every way. Except status. (Shop class as soulcraft.)

Tom Hering

SK, I agree with your observations concerning vo-tech education. The school where I live used to offer courses in welding, carpentry, auto repair, etc. Now they’re pretty much limited to courses in entry-level computer and medical skills. Plus courses that allow management types to update their resumes. This change is the result of a failure, on the part of a college-crazy society, to recognize how the manual trades require a high degree of intelligence. And provide careers that are fulfilling in every way. Except status. (Shop class as soulcraft.)

collie

Wow, I couldn’t agree more with you guys on the vocational schools topic. I posted similar ideas over on the “u.s. test scores vs China’s” thread, before reading this one.

collie

Wow, I couldn’t agree more with you guys on the vocational schools topic. I posted similar ideas over on the “u.s. test scores vs China’s” thread, before reading this one.

http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

Part of the issue is that in the past, due in no small part to certain discrimination that we don’t like to remember (Jim Crow, unwritten codes regarding various ethnic and religious groups), you could be a family man and yet be in the lower middle class or poor.

Today, it’s harder to do that (which is a good thing), and to be poor, you are generally unmarried but likely with children. Now match that with the church’s (rightful) rejection of fornication.

You’ve got something of a “hard sell” to reach people hardened more than you’d like by sin.

http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

Part of the issue is that in the past, due in no small part to certain discrimination that we don’t like to remember (Jim Crow, unwritten codes regarding various ethnic and religious groups), you could be a family man and yet be in the lower middle class or poor.

Today, it’s harder to do that (which is a good thing), and to be poor, you are generally unmarried but likely with children. Now match that with the church’s (rightful) rejection of fornication.

You’ve got something of a “hard sell” to reach people hardened more than you’d like by sin.

Neal

As noted, number of reasons contribute to this. It seems like a self-reinforcing trend – people from strong families are able to pursue and achieve higher educational standards (supportive families help their children learn, reinforce a high-valuation of learning, have the financial stability to enable higher-education, are able to live in neighborhoods with better primary schools, etc). Those educational standards encourage (as we are finding out from studies like the one above) stronger families and the cycle strengthens. The culturally rich (rather than monetary) get richer.

This cycle certainty seems to fly in the face of the avante-garde that used to view marriage as oppressive, old fashioned, un-needed, etc. The problem with such non-sense is that it readily becomes apparent that it is wrong, and you have to have attained to a special degree of detachment from reality that most of us never achieve to believe it.

I find the religious implications interesting. We (at least I) have tended to view elites and uber-educated as hostile toward Christianity. That certainly has been true in the U.S., but I was told recently (from someone I trust, but with no way to verify it immediately) that in England the trend was the exact opposite: the ‘man on the street’ walked away from Christianity while it remained a powerful cultural force within the more elite circles.

I suspect, at least in the US, that has a lot to due with the Fundamentalist withdrawal from society from the mid 1920’s through the 1940’s. I suspect that a lot of the current shift toward Christianity (as measured by church attendance) among the educated has to do with the systematic re-valuation of education and cultural engagement within the Evangelical community that began in the 50’s (if my history is correct). As a supporting factor has been the fact that there is increasing tolerance for a much more diverse set of views politically, socially and theologically within the theologically conservative Evangelical movement. The educated don’t feel like they have to check their brain in the Church foyer.

Again – if there’s any validity to that, it is one social factor among many, by I think this Evangelical re-engagement and a re-valuing of the “Evangelical Mind” deserves careful attention when examining these broader cultural trends.

Neal

As noted, number of reasons contribute to this. It seems like a self-reinforcing trend – people from strong families are able to pursue and achieve higher educational standards (supportive families help their children learn, reinforce a high-valuation of learning, have the financial stability to enable higher-education, are able to live in neighborhoods with better primary schools, etc). Those educational standards encourage (as we are finding out from studies like the one above) stronger families and the cycle strengthens. The culturally rich (rather than monetary) get richer.

This cycle certainty seems to fly in the face of the avante-garde that used to view marriage as oppressive, old fashioned, un-needed, etc. The problem with such non-sense is that it readily becomes apparent that it is wrong, and you have to have attained to a special degree of detachment from reality that most of us never achieve to believe it.

I find the religious implications interesting. We (at least I) have tended to view elites and uber-educated as hostile toward Christianity. That certainly has been true in the U.S., but I was told recently (from someone I trust, but with no way to verify it immediately) that in England the trend was the exact opposite: the ‘man on the street’ walked away from Christianity while it remained a powerful cultural force within the more elite circles.

I suspect, at least in the US, that has a lot to due with the Fundamentalist withdrawal from society from the mid 1920’s through the 1940’s. I suspect that a lot of the current shift toward Christianity (as measured by church attendance) among the educated has to do with the systematic re-valuation of education and cultural engagement within the Evangelical community that began in the 50’s (if my history is correct). As a supporting factor has been the fact that there is increasing tolerance for a much more diverse set of views politically, socially and theologically within the theologically conservative Evangelical movement. The educated don’t feel like they have to check their brain in the Church foyer.

Again – if there’s any validity to that, it is one social factor among many, by I think this Evangelical re-engagement and a re-valuing of the “Evangelical Mind” deserves careful attention when examining these broader cultural trends.

Tom Hering

Neal @ 6, one influence that shouldn’t be forgotten is M. Scott Peck’s 1978 book, The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth, which became a bestseller in 1983. It gave “permission” to adults, who were formed in the atmosphere of the 1960s and ’70s, to embrace the traditional values they had rejected.

Tom Hering

Neal @ 6, one influence that shouldn’t be forgotten is M. Scott Peck’s 1978 book, The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth, which became a bestseller in 1983. It gave “permission” to adults, who were formed in the atmosphere of the 1960s and ’70s, to embrace the traditional values they had rejected.

“That has now reversed: Today 34 percent of college graduates attend weekly religious services, compared with 28 percent of moderately educated Americans, said the report, which was jointly issued by the NMP and Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values.”

As more folks are going to college, the people who are added come from a group that has higher church attendance. This is just like in chemistry where you add solutions of different concentrations. When only the smartest folks go to college, there is a higher proportion of non-believers. When more middle class folks go to college, there are more believers and therefore more church-goers. Also, non-believers have fewer children, so it could be a secular trend. Time will tell. What we are seeing is just the effect of the proportion of folks that fall into these categories of higher vs. moderate education.

“That has now reversed: Today 34 percent of college graduates attend weekly religious services, compared with 28 percent of moderately educated Americans, said the report, which was jointly issued by the NMP and Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values.”

As more folks are going to college, the people who are added come from a group that has higher church attendance. This is just like in chemistry where you add solutions of different concentrations. When only the smartest folks go to college, there is a higher proportion of non-believers. When more middle class folks go to college, there are more believers and therefore more church-goers. Also, non-believers have fewer children, so it could be a secular trend. Time will tell. What we are seeing is just the effect of the proportion of folks that fall into these categories of higher vs. moderate education.

Porcell

What could be going on here is that college educated people in the long run lead in setting cultural trends including for that of marriage. Not too long ago during the sixties and seventies many college people turned off on church and traditional marriage, starting a trend of cohabitation without marriage. It took awhile for this move down to the blue-collar folk.

In recent years college folk, if Wilcox is right, particularly the women, are insisting on marriage; some, also, are becoming interested in church. It will take awhile for this trend to move down to the blue collar people.

Porcell

What could be going on here is that college educated people in the long run lead in setting cultural trends including for that of marriage. Not too long ago during the sixties and seventies many college people turned off on church and traditional marriage, starting a trend of cohabitation without marriage. It took awhile for this move down to the blue-collar folk.

In recent years college folk, if Wilcox is right, particularly the women, are insisting on marriage; some, also, are becoming interested in church. It will take awhile for this trend to move down to the blue collar people.

“It will take awhile for this trend to move down to the blue collar people.”

I doubt it. The trend toward child illegitimacy is growing, not slowing. As long as illegitimacy is subsidized it will grow. People respond to incentives.

I didn’t think of it before, but women tend to be more church going. That is probably also part of it. When college was predominantly male, then there were proportionally fewer church-goers. With 60% female, then yes, more church-goers.

“It will take awhile for this trend to move down to the blue collar people.”

I doubt it. The trend toward child illegitimacy is growing, not slowing. As long as illegitimacy is subsidized it will grow. People respond to incentives.

I didn’t think of it before, but women tend to be more church going. That is probably also part of it. When college was predominantly male, then there were proportionally fewer church-goers. With 60% female, then yes, more church-goers.

http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

“Going to church” does not necessarily equate to “divine regeneration.” The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages bears witness to this.

http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

“Going to church” does not necessarily equate to “divine regeneration.” The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages bears witness to this.

DonS

SKP @ 1, I think, nailed it.

SG @ 8 and 10 may be on to something, as well. If in the 1970’s, the stronger families were the more moderately educated, it makes sense that their offspring are doing well, and more of them are exceeding the education of their parents, while retaining their values and faith. And vice-versa. Anecdotally, I have seen many children from wealthy families utterly fail in their early adult life because of their lax and value-free upbringing. Her point about the dominance of women in the college population is valid as well. This could be making a difference, at least on the margins.

This brings to mind something that always bugs me about statistical analysis. We tend to view things statically, just assuming that we are talking about the same families in each of these statistical snapshots, when in actuality the beautiful thing about America is that people move up the ladder all the time. We do the same thing with poverty statistics, assuming that the same people remain mired in poverty forever because the number is fairly static, when, in actuality, it can represent a substantial changeover as people formerly in that group begin to prosper.

DonS

SKP @ 1, I think, nailed it.

SG @ 8 and 10 may be on to something, as well. If in the 1970’s, the stronger families were the more moderately educated, it makes sense that their offspring are doing well, and more of them are exceeding the education of their parents, while retaining their values and faith. And vice-versa. Anecdotally, I have seen many children from wealthy families utterly fail in their early adult life because of their lax and value-free upbringing. Her point about the dominance of women in the college population is valid as well. This could be making a difference, at least on the margins.

This brings to mind something that always bugs me about statistical analysis. We tend to view things statically, just assuming that we are talking about the same families in each of these statistical snapshots, when in actuality the beautiful thing about America is that people move up the ladder all the time. We do the same thing with poverty statistics, assuming that the same people remain mired in poverty forever because the number is fairly static, when, in actuality, it can represent a substantial changeover as people formerly in that group begin to prosper.

“This brings to mind something that always bugs me about statistical analysis. We tend to view things statically, just assuming that we are talking about the same families in each of these statistical snapshots, when in actuality the beautiful thing about America is that people move up the ladder all the time. ”

This is why you see more honest folks using regression analysis to see if the specific variables have an independent effect or whether they are artifacts of the data. If our population were static and included no immigration, these trends would reflect changes within a certain group and between generations, however, since we have significant immigration and it disproportionally includes younger people, it can’t be ignored when analyzing trends.

“This brings to mind something that always bugs me about statistical analysis. We tend to view things statically, just assuming that we are talking about the same families in each of these statistical snapshots, when in actuality the beautiful thing about America is that people move up the ladder all the time. ”

This is why you see more honest folks using regression analysis to see if the specific variables have an independent effect or whether they are artifacts of the data. If our population were static and included no immigration, these trends would reflect changes within a certain group and between generations, however, since we have significant immigration and it disproportionally includes younger people, it can’t be ignored when analyzing trends.

I have three points to make. First, the post-war years have seen the rise of the consumption community. People become members of communities where coomon goods are consumed. The common communities of home, school, and church have been greatly undermined by these consumption communities. (For an examination of this basic concept see the works of historian Daniel Boorstin)

Secondly, and this point is connected to my previous entry, is the acceleration of popular culture. It is an obvious point, I think, and I will belabor the reading audience further.

Third, there has been no widespread social crisis which has threatened the existence of the country itself. The Depression and World War II were such events but there has been nothing like it since.

In major crises like a general world war, people stay loyal to common communities.

Education certainly factors into all of this as the Douthat piece describes.

norman teigen

Thanks for initiating this discussion. It’s timely.

I have three points to make. First, the post-war years have seen the rise of the consumption community. People become members of communities where coomon goods are consumed. The common communities of home, school, and church have been greatly undermined by these consumption communities. (For an examination of this basic concept see the works of historian Daniel Boorstin)

Secondly, and this point is connected to my previous entry, is the acceleration of popular culture. It is an obvious point, I think, and I will belabor the reading audience further.

Third, there has been no widespread social crisis which has threatened the existence of the country itself. The Depression and World War II were such events but there has been nothing like it since.

In major crises like a general world war, people stay loyal to common communities.

Education certainly factors into all of this as the Douthat piece describes.

“Third, there has been no widespread social crisis which has threatened the existence of the country itself.”

Yes, there is an existential threat. It is widespread and unacknowledged; multiculturalism. It is not a strength. It divides a house against itself to the point it cannot stand. We have no unifying ideals, not even foundational ones like the right to life. There is not a significant level of unity in any of the major areas that unite groups. We were founded and prospered under Christianity, capitalism and equality before the law. The authority of which have been eroded in law.

“Third, there has been no widespread social crisis which has threatened the existence of the country itself.”

Yes, there is an existential threat. It is widespread and unacknowledged; multiculturalism. It is not a strength. It divides a house against itself to the point it cannot stand. We have no unifying ideals, not even foundational ones like the right to life. There is not a significant level of unity in any of the major areas that unite groups. We were founded and prospered under Christianity, capitalism and equality before the law. The authority of which have been eroded in law.

norman teigen

Strange set of ideas in this post, sg. I am not sure of your point. Law is one of the foundations of the American system.. Do younhave a problem with The Rule of Law in American history?

Christianity was, certainly, present at the beginning was so was the Enlightenment.

My point was that the consumption community mentality along with popular culture influences began to hold sway in a national community with no challenge like the Depression and World War II.

There are plenty of ideals in the culture and multiculturalism is by no means the worst.

norman teigen

Strange set of ideas in this post, sg. I am not sure of your point. Law is one of the foundations of the American system.. Do younhave a problem with The Rule of Law in American history?

Christianity was, certainly, present at the beginning was so was the Enlightenment.

My point was that the consumption community mentality along with popular culture influences began to hold sway in a national community with no challenge like the Depression and World War II.

There are plenty of ideals in the culture and multiculturalism is by no means the worst.

Yeah, well, rather the lack of the rule of law. Much of what the government does is extra-constitutional/unconstitutional. We just have judges “make it legal” with bogus interpretations and inventions.

“There are plenty of ideals in the culture and multiculturalism is by no means the worst.”

I disagree. Multiculti debases good goals like community and destroys social cohesion and trust.

Yeah, well, rather the lack of the rule of law. Much of what the government does is extra-constitutional/unconstitutional. We just have judges “make it legal” with bogus interpretations and inventions.

“There are plenty of ideals in the culture and multiculturalism is by no means the worst.”

I disagree. Multiculti debases good goals like community and destroys social cohesion and trust.

norman teigen

sg Your post is unworthy of any further responses.

norman teigen

sg Your post is unworthy of any further responses.

Grace

sg – 24

“I disagree. Multiculti debases good goals like community and destroys social cohesion and trust.”

I am surprised at your response. Please expound as to your belief, and how you would correct what you see as “destroys social cohesion and trust” –

Grace

sg – 24

“I disagree. Multiculti debases good goals like community and destroys social cohesion and trust.”

I am surprised at your response. Please expound as to your belief, and how you would correct what you see as “destroys social cohesion and trust” –

fws @ 23, Okay, I found the report cited in the WaPo article. It is 106 pages. It isn’t too dense for any educated lay person to understand, but the length alone means it would take a while to give you a fair answer. Feel free to read it yourself and share your opinion. This thread will still be around.

fws @ 23, Okay, I found the report cited in the WaPo article. It is 106 pages. It isn’t too dense for any educated lay person to understand, but the length alone means it would take a while to give you a fair answer. Feel free to read it yourself and share your opinion. This thread will still be around.

“I am surprised at your response. Please expound as to your belief, and how you would correct what you see as “destroys social cohesion and trust” -”

Consider your children. Would you be excited for let’s say your son to marry a girl who is a member of your congregation and whose parents are as well and who participate in projects of your church? Or would you prefer he just shack up with an unbeliever whom he met at a bar and whose parents were never married but rotate boyfriends/girlfriends? Assuming both girls have the same age, education, income, pleasant demeanor, which would you prefer? Would you trust each of those girls equally? Would it be as easy for you to loan them money if they had problems? Would you be as excited to hear either were expecting? Would you trust that a non-believer would treat your son and grandchildren as well as the girl whose family has attended church with you for years?

People who hold to the same beliefs are more likely to trust one another. The LCMS Lutherans came to the US because they didn’t trust the gov’t involvement in the German State church. They wanted to be in a group of people who were in agreement with them. They set up their own schools for their kids because they trusted their own community with their kids. This is similar to Catholics who had their own schools. Even after the public schools were established, the LCMS schools and Catholic schools remained because people trusted their own community more than the government. Turns out their suspicions were justified. Now homeschool is on the rise even among the secular because for academic or other reasons, they don’t trust a school with their kids. Trust is declining. Trust in a society is like “good will” in business. It is absolutely essential. In order to have trust, there has to be some level of agreement. No agreement is chaos and barbarism. Total agreement is what? maybe Japan? I don’t know.

Anyway, the only way that social problems are ever corrected is for folks to deny themselves and submit to the Lord and his law. His law is good for us and our obedience to it is good for our neighbors.

“I am surprised at your response. Please expound as to your belief, and how you would correct what you see as “destroys social cohesion and trust” -”

Consider your children. Would you be excited for let’s say your son to marry a girl who is a member of your congregation and whose parents are as well and who participate in projects of your church? Or would you prefer he just shack up with an unbeliever whom he met at a bar and whose parents were never married but rotate boyfriends/girlfriends? Assuming both girls have the same age, education, income, pleasant demeanor, which would you prefer? Would you trust each of those girls equally? Would it be as easy for you to loan them money if they had problems? Would you be as excited to hear either were expecting? Would you trust that a non-believer would treat your son and grandchildren as well as the girl whose family has attended church with you for years?

People who hold to the same beliefs are more likely to trust one another. The LCMS Lutherans came to the US because they didn’t trust the gov’t involvement in the German State church. They wanted to be in a group of people who were in agreement with them. They set up their own schools for their kids because they trusted their own community with their kids. This is similar to Catholics who had their own schools. Even after the public schools were established, the LCMS schools and Catholic schools remained because people trusted their own community more than the government. Turns out their suspicions were justified. Now homeschool is on the rise even among the secular because for academic or other reasons, they don’t trust a school with their kids. Trust is declining. Trust in a society is like “good will” in business. It is absolutely essential. In order to have trust, there has to be some level of agreement. No agreement is chaos and barbarism. Total agreement is what? maybe Japan? I don’t know.

Anyway, the only way that social problems are ever corrected is for folks to deny themselves and submit to the Lord and his law. His law is good for us and our obedience to it is good for our neighbors.

Grace

sg – 30

You are speaking of “shacking up” – children without parents being married – what does that have to do with “Multiculturalism” ?

As Norman pointed out in #21 “There are plenty of ideals in the culture and multiculturalism is by no means the worst.”

The definition of “multicultural” below isn’t speaking of morals, such as “shacking up”

multiculturalism – definition

1. Of, relating to, or including several cultures. 2. Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

I don’t believe that multiculturalism should be categorized only by morals, or embracing cults, or other religions contrary to the Bible … I would consider it more as differences, to be appreciated and understood, as in the region, country they came from.

As I’ve stated on this blog before – we live in a community with many different ethnic groups, almost all are college educated, either owning their own business or at the top of their profession. That doesn’t mean we embrace their religion, or that we would be one bit happy if one of their kids were to date ours, but then that is no different than one’s child attending university, being in the company of thousands of students from around the world.

I think of multicultural, as being interested in their history, opening up communication between us. Perhaps having the opportunity to share my faith in Christ – maybe inviting them for coffee or a glass of wine and snacks.

I don’t ever want to exclude anyone from my life unless, they are immoral, argumentative, unable to abide by common manners. They might have different religious beliefs, however they might see our life and want to learn more.

Mulitculturalism offers opportunities to the Christian Believer to share what we have.

Grace

sg – 30

You are speaking of “shacking up” – children without parents being married – what does that have to do with “Multiculturalism” ?

As Norman pointed out in #21 “There are plenty of ideals in the culture and multiculturalism is by no means the worst.”

The definition of “multicultural” below isn’t speaking of morals, such as “shacking up”

multiculturalism – definition

1. Of, relating to, or including several cultures. 2. Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

I don’t believe that multiculturalism should be categorized only by morals, or embracing cults, or other religions contrary to the Bible … I would consider it more as differences, to be appreciated and understood, as in the region, country they came from.

As I’ve stated on this blog before – we live in a community with many different ethnic groups, almost all are college educated, either owning their own business or at the top of their profession. That doesn’t mean we embrace their religion, or that we would be one bit happy if one of their kids were to date ours, but then that is no different than one’s child attending university, being in the company of thousands of students from around the world.

I think of multicultural, as being interested in their history, opening up communication between us. Perhaps having the opportunity to share my faith in Christ – maybe inviting them for coffee or a glass of wine and snacks.

I don’t ever want to exclude anyone from my life unless, they are immoral, argumentative, unable to abide by common manners. They might have different religious beliefs, however they might see our life and want to learn more.

Mulitculturalism offers opportunities to the Christian Believer to share what we have.

“I don’t believe that multiculturalism should be categorized only by morals, or embracing cults, or other religions contrary to the Bible … I would consider it more as differences, to be appreciated and understood, as in the region, country they came from.”

Well there is the old “is-ought” problem. We like to redefine stuff so that it conforms to what we think it should be. Unfortunately, culture includes religion, so we can’t just eliminate it from the discussion. I tried to give an example where just one element of culture differed and couldn’t get a straight answer on trust. The truth is we don’t trust people who are different as much as we trust people who are the same. If all the different groups who have moved here trusted us so much, they wouldn’t form associations for the express purpose of advocating for their own group. The whole understand and appreciate thing is a product of western culture. Those from non-western traditions do not share that sentiment.

Anyway, your argument assumes hegemony. Something we are quickly losing. Loss of which is an existential threat to our culture because human society is fundamentally hierarchical not egalitarian. There must be a dominant “mainstream” culture. I would prefer it to be our Christian western tradition because ours is better.

“I don’t believe that multiculturalism should be categorized only by morals, or embracing cults, or other religions contrary to the Bible … I would consider it more as differences, to be appreciated and understood, as in the region, country they came from.”

Well there is the old “is-ought” problem. We like to redefine stuff so that it conforms to what we think it should be. Unfortunately, culture includes religion, so we can’t just eliminate it from the discussion. I tried to give an example where just one element of culture differed and couldn’t get a straight answer on trust. The truth is we don’t trust people who are different as much as we trust people who are the same. If all the different groups who have moved here trusted us so much, they wouldn’t form associations for the express purpose of advocating for their own group. The whole understand and appreciate thing is a product of western culture. Those from non-western traditions do not share that sentiment.

Anyway, your argument assumes hegemony. Something we are quickly losing. Loss of which is an existential threat to our culture because human society is fundamentally hierarchical not egalitarian. There must be a dominant “mainstream” culture. I would prefer it to be our Christian western tradition because ours is better.

Grace

st – 32

“The whole understand and appreciate thing is a product of western culture. Those from non-western traditions do not share that sentiment. “

If many other cultures and countries had, had the same idea, their would not have been WW2, nor would there have been many other wars – most people have no interest in understanding others. In fact they have no intention of even knowing them on a casual basis.

“Anyway, your argument assumes hegemony. Something we are quickly losing. Loss of which is an existential threat to our culture because human society is fundamentally hierarchical not egalitarian. There must be a dominant “mainstream” culture. I would prefer it to be our Christian western tradition because ours is better.”

No sg, my statement doesn’t define itself in “hegemony” – I don’t want our country to be a dictatorship, which is exactly what “hegemony” is. Of course you can re-arrange the meaning, but it all boils down to rulership.

hegemony definition authority or control: control or dominating influence by one person or group, especially by one political group over society or one nation over others

Our country doesn’t practice what you and I consider moral behavior, …… consider abortion, rampant sexual behavior among those old enough to emulate their friends and parents, those seeking to make same sex marriage lawful in the U.S. – as time goes by, we see clearly that the moral standards we held/hold dear and that of our parents is becoming a trickle in this country. We cannot make moral law – if we could, we wouldn’t have the above problems.

I would love everyone to believe in Christ, to Worship Him, but the Bible makes clear that isn’t going to be the case:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:14

Grace

st – 32

“The whole understand and appreciate thing is a product of western culture. Those from non-western traditions do not share that sentiment. “

If many other cultures and countries had, had the same idea, their would not have been WW2, nor would there have been many other wars – most people have no interest in understanding others. In fact they have no intention of even knowing them on a casual basis.

“Anyway, your argument assumes hegemony. Something we are quickly losing. Loss of which is an existential threat to our culture because human society is fundamentally hierarchical not egalitarian. There must be a dominant “mainstream” culture. I would prefer it to be our Christian western tradition because ours is better.”

No sg, my statement doesn’t define itself in “hegemony” – I don’t want our country to be a dictatorship, which is exactly what “hegemony” is. Of course you can re-arrange the meaning, but it all boils down to rulership.

hegemony definition authority or control: control or dominating influence by one person or group, especially by one political group over society or one nation over others

Our country doesn’t practice what you and I consider moral behavior, …… consider abortion, rampant sexual behavior among those old enough to emulate their friends and parents, those seeking to make same sex marriage lawful in the U.S. – as time goes by, we see clearly that the moral standards we held/hold dear and that of our parents is becoming a trickle in this country. We cannot make moral law – if we could, we wouldn’t have the above problems.

I would love everyone to believe in Christ, to Worship Him, but the Bible makes clear that isn’t going to be the case:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:14

Consider figure 1, p.19, the college educated group is less likely to divorce in the first 10 years than it was in the 70’s. Then in fig. 2, p. 20, they are just as likely to be happily married (69%) and that is higher than the other two which have declined. Fig. 3, p.21 shows that they have experienced the smallest decline in intact first marriages. Fig. 4 shows they have the smallest % and the smallest % increase in ever cohabiting. Fig. 5 shows they have illegitimacy rates that are an order of magnitude smaller than the others. Fig.6 shows they have the highest family cohesion are the only group whose children saw any improvement in family cohesion. Fig. 8 and 9, 12 shows they were the only group to get more conservative regarding divorce and premarital sex and infidelity.

Okay it goes on like that with the higher educated being better on all measures. Now let’s not fall into the correlation-causation trap. We know that the college degreed are more likely to be Asian now than they were 40 years ago. The traits necessary to get a degree are conscientiousness and intelligence. I would argue that the folks who posses these trait chose to go to college more often in the past 10-20 years than they did in the 60’s and 70’s because in order to achieve their goals, they believed they had to. They are probably right as shown in fig. 17, p. 43.

The report is already pretty long but ignoring the rise of Asians as a percentage of all college graduates leaves the water pretty muddy. I complain of this partly because they managed to report black and white, but not Asian or hispanic. This is significant because hispanics are a significant portion of the least educated and Asian are a very significant portion of the college educated. In fact it is plausible that virtually all the changes are due to the relative levels of the different ethnicities in the respective groups. Likely some interested blogger will investigate this angle on the study in some detail in the coming months.

Fig. 20, p. 49 is pretty interesting in that it shows church attendance declined least among the college educated. Here again, it would be interesting to know the ethnic breakdown. I would expect white, hispanic, and black college grads to be higher and Asian lower and the increase in Asian representation to account for the decline. Since they compiled that chart from the GSS, they could easily have included that info. Why they didn’t, I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

Figure S1, p.55 only disaggregates blacks and whites and the data is from GSS, so they could have included other groups. Now this is the first truly interesting piece of data. The percent increase in the dissolution of first marriages among the college educated was greater for blacks than whites. Contrast that with figures 1 and 3 at the beginning of the report. Using the same data set, GSS, fig. 3 shows an overall decrease from 73% to 56% in intact marriages and fig. S1 shows whites decreased from 74% to 56% and blacks went from 67% to 44%. So either blacks only account for 1% of all college grads and therefore have virtually no impact on the overall percentages, or the Asian and/or hispanic rates are higher than the white rates. Without checking GSS, I am guessing the Asians have better/similar rates and because they are such a significant portion of all college educated folks, they cannot be an insignificant factor.

Okay, biggest flaw of the study is that it fails in its stated goal, p. iv, “4) conduct research on the ways in which children, race, class, immigration, ethnicity, religion, and poverty shape the quality and stability of contemporary marriage;”

The word immigration appears once in the document in goal 4, and Asian and hispanic appear once on pp.84-85.

The 2010 report focuses on the education variable, which is fine, but education and the other variables are dynamic so ignoring Asian ethnicity in a study of the marriage patterns of the college educated is egregious. Like most in the field, it seems they almost don’t wish to see what is right there in plain sight.

Consider figure 1, p.19, the college educated group is less likely to divorce in the first 10 years than it was in the 70’s. Then in fig. 2, p. 20, they are just as likely to be happily married (69%) and that is higher than the other two which have declined. Fig. 3, p.21 shows that they have experienced the smallest decline in intact first marriages. Fig. 4 shows they have the smallest % and the smallest % increase in ever cohabiting. Fig. 5 shows they have illegitimacy rates that are an order of magnitude smaller than the others. Fig.6 shows they have the highest family cohesion are the only group whose children saw any improvement in family cohesion. Fig. 8 and 9, 12 shows they were the only group to get more conservative regarding divorce and premarital sex and infidelity.

Okay it goes on like that with the higher educated being better on all measures. Now let’s not fall into the correlation-causation trap. We know that the college degreed are more likely to be Asian now than they were 40 years ago. The traits necessary to get a degree are conscientiousness and intelligence. I would argue that the folks who posses these trait chose to go to college more often in the past 10-20 years than they did in the 60’s and 70’s because in order to achieve their goals, they believed they had to. They are probably right as shown in fig. 17, p. 43.

The report is already pretty long but ignoring the rise of Asians as a percentage of all college graduates leaves the water pretty muddy. I complain of this partly because they managed to report black and white, but not Asian or hispanic. This is significant because hispanics are a significant portion of the least educated and Asian are a very significant portion of the college educated. In fact it is plausible that virtually all the changes are due to the relative levels of the different ethnicities in the respective groups. Likely some interested blogger will investigate this angle on the study in some detail in the coming months.

Fig. 20, p. 49 is pretty interesting in that it shows church attendance declined least among the college educated. Here again, it would be interesting to know the ethnic breakdown. I would expect white, hispanic, and black college grads to be higher and Asian lower and the increase in Asian representation to account for the decline. Since they compiled that chart from the GSS, they could easily have included that info. Why they didn’t, I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

Figure S1, p.55 only disaggregates blacks and whites and the data is from GSS, so they could have included other groups. Now this is the first truly interesting piece of data. The percent increase in the dissolution of first marriages among the college educated was greater for blacks than whites. Contrast that with figures 1 and 3 at the beginning of the report. Using the same data set, GSS, fig. 3 shows an overall decrease from 73% to 56% in intact marriages and fig. S1 shows whites decreased from 74% to 56% and blacks went from 67% to 44%. So either blacks only account for 1% of all college grads and therefore have virtually no impact on the overall percentages, or the Asian and/or hispanic rates are higher than the white rates. Without checking GSS, I am guessing the Asians have better/similar rates and because they are such a significant portion of all college educated folks, they cannot be an insignificant factor.

Okay, biggest flaw of the study is that it fails in its stated goal, p. iv, “4) conduct research on the ways in which children, race, class, immigration, ethnicity, religion, and poverty shape the quality and stability of contemporary marriage;”

The word immigration appears once in the document in goal 4, and Asian and hispanic appear once on pp.84-85.

The 2010 report focuses on the education variable, which is fine, but education and the other variables are dynamic so ignoring Asian ethnicity in a study of the marriage patterns of the college educated is egregious. Like most in the field, it seems they almost don’t wish to see what is right there in plain sight.

“hegemony definition authority or control: control or dominating influence by one person or group, especially by one political group over society or one nation over others”

Grace, hegemony is not dictatorship, it is dominance. Just look at the definition. There is nothing wrong with Christians occupying the dominant role in society. We should dominate. It is our responsibility to at least try especially since this is a democracy and people to free to participate in shaping the laws and policies. Dominance is not a bad word. It is part of a functioning hierarchy. The alternative is chaos and barbarism.

“I don’t want our country to be a dictatorship, which is exactly what “hegemony” is. Of course you can re-arrange the meaning, but it all boils down to rulership.”

This is a typical female response, which that makes sense coming from a woman. However, just because we don’t feel comfortable personally in the dominant role doesn’t mean that the role will not be filled by someone because it most definitely will be. Nature abhors a vacuum. A power vacuum will be filled. Far better that Christian culture fill it than some other culture.

“We cannot make moral law – if we could, we wouldn’t have the above problems.”

We can, and we do. All laws are moral. Laws just can’t eliminate law breaking.

“hegemony definition authority or control: control or dominating influence by one person or group, especially by one political group over society or one nation over others”

Grace, hegemony is not dictatorship, it is dominance. Just look at the definition. There is nothing wrong with Christians occupying the dominant role in society. We should dominate. It is our responsibility to at least try especially since this is a democracy and people to free to participate in shaping the laws and policies. Dominance is not a bad word. It is part of a functioning hierarchy. The alternative is chaos and barbarism.

“I don’t want our country to be a dictatorship, which is exactly what “hegemony” is. Of course you can re-arrange the meaning, but it all boils down to rulership.”

This is a typical female response, which that makes sense coming from a woman. However, just because we don’t feel comfortable personally in the dominant role doesn’t mean that the role will not be filled by someone because it most definitely will be. Nature abhors a vacuum. A power vacuum will be filled. Far better that Christian culture fill it than some other culture.

“We cannot make moral law – if we could, we wouldn’t have the above problems.”

We can, and we do. All laws are moral. Laws just can’t eliminate law breaking.

Grace

sg –

“Grace, hegemony is not dictatorship, it is dominance. Just look at the definition. There is nothing wrong with Christians occupying the dominant role in society. We should dominate.”

We should NOT dominate, the LORD should – He is the only one that counts. Every society that has tried to dominate has failed, they have hit the skids full force. The LORD Jesus Christ has laid out the plan, we can either follow Him or we can believe we can “dominate” and through that means will never show any sort of Christian love.

“This is a typical female response, which that makes sense coming from a woman. However, just because we don’t feel comfortable personally in the dominant role doesn’t mean that the role will not be filled by someone because it most definitely will be. Nature abhors a vacuum. A power vacuum will be filled. Far better that Christian culture fill it than some other culture.”

“Typical woman” – LOL – you don’t surprise me.

“Nature abhors a vacuum” – OK sg,…… and the LORD uses men to fill that place, it’s not your’s as a woman or mine, no matter how much you would like to place yourself or someone else who is female. I am a woman, I know my place, …. I don’t have the authority from God Almighty to usurp the place of a man, either in the church or government, and neither do YOU!

Grace

sg –

“Grace, hegemony is not dictatorship, it is dominance. Just look at the definition. There is nothing wrong with Christians occupying the dominant role in society. We should dominate.”

We should NOT dominate, the LORD should – He is the only one that counts. Every society that has tried to dominate has failed, they have hit the skids full force. The LORD Jesus Christ has laid out the plan, we can either follow Him or we can believe we can “dominate” and through that means will never show any sort of Christian love.

“This is a typical female response, which that makes sense coming from a woman. However, just because we don’t feel comfortable personally in the dominant role doesn’t mean that the role will not be filled by someone because it most definitely will be. Nature abhors a vacuum. A power vacuum will be filled. Far better that Christian culture fill it than some other culture.”

“Typical woman” – LOL – you don’t surprise me.

“Nature abhors a vacuum” – OK sg,…… and the LORD uses men to fill that place, it’s not your’s as a woman or mine, no matter how much you would like to place yourself or someone else who is female. I am a woman, I know my place, …. I don’t have the authority from God Almighty to usurp the place of a man, either in the church or government, and neither do YOU!

“I don’t have the authority from God Almighty to usurp the place of a man, either in the church or government, and neither do YOU!”

Yeah, that is what I said, just more politely.

My argument is for the dominance of Christian culture.

“We should NOT dominate,”

Yeah, we should. It is better than some pagan/atheist culture dominating.

“the LORD should – He is the only one that counts.”

Sounds great.

“Every society that has tried to dominate has failed, they have hit the skids full force.”

Not true. I am only arguing for Christian culture to be the overriding cultural influence. That does not lead to failure.

“The LORD Jesus Christ has laid out the plan, we can either follow Him or we can believe we can “dominate” and through that means will never show any sort of Christian love.”

I think you just don’t like the word ‘dominance’, because we seem to be arguing for the same thing. Christianity was the dominant cultural influence in Europe at least since Charlemagne. There were pagans in the north, and there were muslim invasions which had influence in some areas but Christianity was dominant. Just say dominant in some positive contexts and you will get over your aversion to the word. How about, “the dominant feature of our home is the love of our family”. See, isn’t that nice? Dominance is good. Compare prevalence and dominance. They are similar and you may already feel comfortable with prevalence.

“I don’t have the authority from God Almighty to usurp the place of a man, either in the church or government, and neither do YOU!”

Yeah, that is what I said, just more politely.

My argument is for the dominance of Christian culture.

“We should NOT dominate,”

Yeah, we should. It is better than some pagan/atheist culture dominating.

“the LORD should – He is the only one that counts.”

Sounds great.

“Every society that has tried to dominate has failed, they have hit the skids full force.”

Not true. I am only arguing for Christian culture to be the overriding cultural influence. That does not lead to failure.

“The LORD Jesus Christ has laid out the plan, we can either follow Him or we can believe we can “dominate” and through that means will never show any sort of Christian love.”

I think you just don’t like the word ‘dominance’, because we seem to be arguing for the same thing. Christianity was the dominant cultural influence in Europe at least since Charlemagne. There were pagans in the north, and there were muslim invasions which had influence in some areas but Christianity was dominant. Just say dominant in some positive contexts and you will get over your aversion to the word. How about, “the dominant feature of our home is the love of our family”. See, isn’t that nice? Dominance is good. Compare prevalence and dominance. They are similar and you may already feel comfortable with prevalence.

Grace

st

sg …… “I think you just don’t like the word ‘dominance’, because we seem to be arguing for the same thing. Christianity was the dominant cultural influence in Europe at least since Charlemagne. There were pagans in the north, and there were muslim invasions which had influence in some areas but Christianity was dominant.”

Charlemagne used force to convert the conquered to Christianity.. that is “dominance” – is that what the LORD Jesus taught? – of course not! That is to anyone’s shame who would do such a thing. Forcing anyone to believe in Christ is never mentioned in the Word of God.

sg….. “Just say dominant in some positive contexts and you will get over your aversion to the word. How about, “the dominant feature of our home is the love of our family”. See, isn’t that nice? Dominance is good. Compare prevalence and dominance. They are similar and you may already feel comfortable with prevalence.

sg, you might be successful in twisting words, using a silly system to twist a word, with kids, …. blubbering some sort of, same meanings according to your definition, but most educated people will laugh their heads off – and no it isn’t “nice” it’s foolish, it amounts to conniving. You should know better. LOL

Grace

st

sg …… “I think you just don’t like the word ‘dominance’, because we seem to be arguing for the same thing. Christianity was the dominant cultural influence in Europe at least since Charlemagne. There were pagans in the north, and there were muslim invasions which had influence in some areas but Christianity was dominant.”

Charlemagne used force to convert the conquered to Christianity.. that is “dominance” – is that what the LORD Jesus taught? – of course not! That is to anyone’s shame who would do such a thing. Forcing anyone to believe in Christ is never mentioned in the Word of God.

sg….. “Just say dominant in some positive contexts and you will get over your aversion to the word. How about, “the dominant feature of our home is the love of our family”. See, isn’t that nice? Dominance is good. Compare prevalence and dominance. They are similar and you may already feel comfortable with prevalence.

sg, you might be successful in twisting words, using a silly system to twist a word, with kids, …. blubbering some sort of, same meanings according to your definition, but most educated people will laugh their heads off – and no it isn’t “nice” it’s foolish, it amounts to conniving. You should know better. LOL

Grace

prevalence and dominance they are not the same, nor are they similar, as you would like to believe.

sg writes: ….. “They are similar and you may already feel comfortable with prevalence.”

Both words, and definition come from OXFORD Dictionaries –

prevalence definition

* the fact or condition of being prevalent; commonness: the prevalence of obesity in adults

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

dominance definition

* most important, powerful, or influential: they are now in an even more dominant position in the market

*(of a high place or object) overlooking others.

*Geneticsrelating to or denoting heritable characteristics that are controlled by genes that are expressed in offspring even when inherited from only one parent.

*Ecologydenoting the predominant species in a plant (or animal) community.

*in decision theory, (of a choice) at least as good as the alternatives in all circumstances, and better in some: holding back is here a dominant strategy

Grace

prevalence and dominance they are not the same, nor are they similar, as you would like to believe.

sg writes: ….. “They are similar and you may already feel comfortable with prevalence.”

Both words, and definition come from OXFORD Dictionaries –

prevalence definition

* the fact or condition of being prevalent; commonness: the prevalence of obesity in adults

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

dominance definition

* most important, powerful, or influential: they are now in an even more dominant position in the market

*(of a high place or object) overlooking others.

*Geneticsrelating to or denoting heritable characteristics that are controlled by genes that are expressed in offspring even when inherited from only one parent.

*Ecologydenoting the predominant species in a plant (or animal) community.

*in decision theory, (of a choice) at least as good as the alternatives in all circumstances, and better in some: holding back is here a dominant strategy

Grace

I sit here tonight, nearing 11:30 PM – I think back to some 2,000 years ago when Christ was born…. and then my mind continues to the time when Christ chose 12 disciples, all Jews to follow Him, to teach and preach the Gospel, which if people believed, confessed their sins, would receive Salvation. All but one of these men were either fishermen or tent makers, only Matthew was educated, and yet we argue over education, and who can muster the most importance among us as of 2010 – it must sorrow our LORD Jesus Christ, He gave his life, His blood on that dreadful cross, to see who’s smarter, who is more important because of their academic ability – what a farce.

Do you believe that God made everyone different, for His own purpose? What is intelligence if one doesn’t believe in Jesus as their Savior?

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 1

Grace

I sit here tonight, nearing 11:30 PM – I think back to some 2,000 years ago when Christ was born…. and then my mind continues to the time when Christ chose 12 disciples, all Jews to follow Him, to teach and preach the Gospel, which if people believed, confessed their sins, would receive Salvation. All but one of these men were either fishermen or tent makers, only Matthew was educated, and yet we argue over education, and who can muster the most importance among us as of 2010 – it must sorrow our LORD Jesus Christ, He gave his life, His blood on that dreadful cross, to see who’s smarter, who is more important because of their academic ability – what a farce.

Do you believe that God made everyone different, for His own purpose? What is intelligence if one doesn’t believe in Jesus as their Savior?

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 1

http://www.thirduse.com fws

sg @ 34

that was extremely informative sister sg. By the way, could you share your first name? mine is frank.

“Okay, biggest flaw of the study is that it fails in its stated goal, p. iv, “4) conduct research on the ways in which children, race, class, immigration, ethnicity, religion, and poverty shape the quality and stability of contemporary marriage;””

You did a great job of demonstrating that this is true and how. That was fun to watch. And you broke it down in a way a bonehead like me could folllow… thanks.

Dr vieth in his post seemed to be saying that the study says that church = lower divorce and stronger marriages. I did not see that this report proved that, and my understanding is that in the states that are arguably more religious (ie the bible belt states), the rates for serial polygamy (ie divorce and remarriage, abortion, etc etc seem to be about the same or even in some cases higher. It does seem like education seems to have a strong correlation.

I did not miss what you said about correlation and cause. and you implied that the report is a little too politically correct so wont dig into how ethnicity plays into all this….

again thanks. what do you see in this report or others about religion or christianity being the cause of or correlative to family values etc reflected in marriage and parenting?

http://www.thirduse.com fws

sg @ 34

that was extremely informative sister sg. By the way, could you share your first name? mine is frank.

“Okay, biggest flaw of the study is that it fails in its stated goal, p. iv, “4) conduct research on the ways in which children, race, class, immigration, ethnicity, religion, and poverty shape the quality and stability of contemporary marriage;””

You did a great job of demonstrating that this is true and how. That was fun to watch. And you broke it down in a way a bonehead like me could folllow… thanks.

Dr vieth in his post seemed to be saying that the study says that church = lower divorce and stronger marriages. I did not see that this report proved that, and my understanding is that in the states that are arguably more religious (ie the bible belt states), the rates for serial polygamy (ie divorce and remarriage, abortion, etc etc seem to be about the same or even in some cases higher. It does seem like education seems to have a strong correlation.

I did not miss what you said about correlation and cause. and you implied that the report is a little too politically correct so wont dig into how ethnicity plays into all this….

again thanks. what do you see in this report or others about religion or christianity being the cause of or correlative to family values etc reflected in marriage and parenting?

Folks whose natural disposition is to be agreeable, conscientious, etc., are going be happy in their relationships. Folks like that may also tend to be more religious so there is the common cause for correlation. Folks such as Asians in America are a select group of agreeable conscientious people because so many come here to fill jobs that require those traits. That is tech, white collar work. It is not universal, of course, but the educated have a higher incidence rate for those traits and so do the religious.

Obviously folks like that are more likely to adhere to whatever religion they are taught even if they don’t actually have any faith. This is why I was making the point about the importance and value of Christian culture being the dominant influence in society. We certainly don’t want to teach strong able youngsters to be hedonists and restrict their access to God’s word, which is what the current material consumerist culture does.

Folks whose natural disposition is to be agreeable, conscientious, etc., are going be happy in their relationships. Folks like that may also tend to be more religious so there is the common cause for correlation. Folks such as Asians in America are a select group of agreeable conscientious people because so many come here to fill jobs that require those traits. That is tech, white collar work. It is not universal, of course, but the educated have a higher incidence rate for those traits and so do the religious.

Obviously folks like that are more likely to adhere to whatever religion they are taught even if they don’t actually have any faith. This is why I was making the point about the importance and value of Christian culture being the dominant influence in society. We certainly don’t want to teach strong able youngsters to be hedonists and restrict their access to God’s word, which is what the current material consumerist culture does.

Grace, the semantic argument against dominance doesn’t work because there is nothing negative or bad about dominance.

Look at the definintion

* most important, powerful, or influential: they are now in an even more dominant position in the market

Yes, I think that Christian culture should be the most important, powerful and influential thread in our society.

*(of a high place or object) overlooking others.

Yes, our leaders should come from the Christian community.

*Genetics relating to or denoting heritable characteristics that are controlled by genes that are expressed in offspring even when inherited from only one parent.

*Ecologydenoting the predominant species in a plant (or animal) community.

Nothing negative here, dominance is just a feature of God’s natural order.

*in decision theory, (of a choice) at least as good as the alternatives in all circumstances, and better in some: holding back is here a dominant strategy

Here dominance is clearly defined as good.

Dominance does not imply evil, violent, manipulative, using trickery or any other negative feature.

Next,

“All but one of these men were either fishermen or tent makers, only Matthew was educated, and yet we argue over education, and who can muster the most importance among us as of 2010 – it must sorrow our LORD Jesus Christ, He gave his life, His blood on that dreadful cross, to see who’s smarter, who is more important because of their academic ability – what a farce.”

Absurd. Does he sorrow over the World Series? Does he sorrow over kids taking the SAT to go to college? Or when companies compete to find cures for disease? There is nothing wrong with competition, or winning or dominance.

God gave us our abilities to use for good. That includes competition and dominance.

Grace, the semantic argument against dominance doesn’t work because there is nothing negative or bad about dominance.

Look at the definintion

* most important, powerful, or influential: they are now in an even more dominant position in the market

Yes, I think that Christian culture should be the most important, powerful and influential thread in our society.

*(of a high place or object) overlooking others.

Yes, our leaders should come from the Christian community.

*Genetics relating to or denoting heritable characteristics that are controlled by genes that are expressed in offspring even when inherited from only one parent.

*Ecologydenoting the predominant species in a plant (or animal) community.

Nothing negative here, dominance is just a feature of God’s natural order.

*in decision theory, (of a choice) at least as good as the alternatives in all circumstances, and better in some: holding back is here a dominant strategy

Here dominance is clearly defined as good.

Dominance does not imply evil, violent, manipulative, using trickery or any other negative feature.

Next,

“All but one of these men were either fishermen or tent makers, only Matthew was educated, and yet we argue over education, and who can muster the most importance among us as of 2010 – it must sorrow our LORD Jesus Christ, He gave his life, His blood on that dreadful cross, to see who’s smarter, who is more important because of their academic ability – what a farce.”

Absurd. Does he sorrow over the World Series? Does he sorrow over kids taking the SAT to go to college? Or when companies compete to find cures for disease? There is nothing wrong with competition, or winning or dominance.

God gave us our abilities to use for good. That includes competition and dominance.

GET PATHEOS NEWSLETTERS

Sign up for free newsletters and special offers

Get the Best of Patheos Newsletter Get the Evangelical Newsletter Get the Cranach Newsletter